From owner-freebsd-stable Mon Apr 9 8:46:30 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from ns1.unixathome.org (ns1.unixathome.org [203.79.82.27]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3400D37B424 for ; Mon, 9 Apr 2001 08:46:27 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Received: from xeon (xeon.int.nz.freebsd.org [192.168.0.18]) by ns1.unixathome.org (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id f39Fjpe72483; Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:45:52 +1200 (NZST) (envelope-from dan@langille.org) Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 03:45:51 +1200 (NZST) From: Dan Langille X-X-Sender: To: Christopher Schulte Cc: Matthew Emmerton , Rasputin , Subject: Re: Releases In-Reply-To: <5.0.2.1.0.20010409101533.00ace930@pop.schulte.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Mon, 9 Apr 2001, Christopher Schulte wrote: > Change the designation just because some admins don't know how to RTFM? I > don't think so... They fu*ked up. Plain and simple. -CURRENT makes sense, > and more importantly is documented for those who take the time to look. This is beginning to sound like a human-computer interface issue. If you read comp.risks, you'll see that issues such as this arise time and time again. It's almost similar to POLA. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck.... Give meaningful and widely used names to things which people are familiar with. > I'm not as hot about the BETA designation, but generally feel it should > be left alone simply because it's documented, and thus should NOT be a > problem. By this designation, we could call a brake a clutch and get away with it because it's all documented. The problem is not with the documentation. It's with the name. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message